C.1 Introduction

The MPO applied its goals and objectives as criteria to qualitatively evaluate the major infrastructure and capacity-adding highway projects that are in the Universe of Projects and Programs list (which had been sufficiently well defined to allow for analysis). Assessing how well projects would address the MPO’s goals and objectives helped the MPO identify priority projects for its major infrastructure program. Table C.1 shows the evaluated major infrastructure projects and Table C.2 provides a summary of the evaluated projects. A memorandum documenting the evaluation process also is included.

Technical Memorandum

DATE: April 15, 2015

TO: Boston
Region MPO

FROM: Sean Pfalzer and William Kuttner

RE:
Long-Range Transportation Plan Evaluation
Criteria

1 Overall Scoring
System

For the 2040 LRTP, 38 projects classed as “major
infrastructure” were evaluated by MPO staff. Based on these evaluations, MPO
staff recommended inclusion of 13 of these projects in the LRTP, four of which
were already programmed in the current TIP. Each of these 38 projects was given
a numerical score, and this score to a large extent determined which projects
were recommended for inclusion in the LRTP.

Each project was given a “high,” “medium,” or “low” rating
in each of six rating categories. Expressing these ratings as numerical values
of three, two, or one point respectively, the scores were summed resulting in a
single numerical score for each project. While the scores could range from 18
points (six “high” scores) down to only 6 points, the 38 Major infrastructure
projects ranged between 14 and 7 points.

Of the 13 projects recommended for inclusion in the LRTP,
all had 11 or more points. Five projects had scores of at least 11 but were not
recommended for inclusion because their costs were beyond the funding
capabilities of the MPO regardless of their high scores.

1.1 Six Rating Categories

The rating categories were established based on the MPO’s
adopted goals and focused on the primary goals addressed by Major Infrastructure
projects:

Safety

System Preservation

Capacity Management and Mobility (3 sub-categories
include impacts to automobiles, buses, and pedestrian/bicyclists)

Economic Vitality

The value of a project for each of these six areas was in
turn characterized by a number of different factors. The evaluation criteria
were grouped into the appropriate rating areas. MPO staff also identified or
developed appropriate quantitative data and indices to help inform the scoring.
As far as practicable, these criteria and indices had to be applied to all
projects so that comparisons could be made between fundamentally dissimilar
projects. More information on the evaluation criteria is presented below.

1.2 Role of Judgment in Determining a
Score

Even with a reasonably complete set of planning-level
evaluation data, the use of judgment is unavoidable in deciding which of the
three scores to give projects for each of the six rating categories. There is,
however, a structure within which judgment is applied. This process can be seen
as a balancing of three factors:

The needs in the proposed project
area

The criteria the proposed project
addresses

The impact a project can have in addressing the
identified needs and advancing MPO goals

Of these three factors, the needs are perhaps best
understood because they are derived from existing conditions. The configurations
of proposed improvements are at this point conceptual and the extent and
intensity of anticipated improvements can only be surmised.

Costs are not mentioned explicitly in these three factors.
As a general rule, however, more costly projects will often have a larger
impact. For instance, the safety and capacity of an obsolete intersection can be
improved by rebuilding it to modern standards. In some instances constructing
some kind of grade separation might be warranted. The costs will inevitably be
greater but the benefits should also be greater. MPO staff accounted for cost to
inform the safety rating for projects in order to compare projects across
purpose and scale.

2 DEVELOPING SCORES IN
EACH CATEGORY

One of the difficulties of scoring projects is choosing a
scoring convention that will allow a valid comparison of dissimilar projects.
Furthermore, fair and usable scoring conventions need to be developed separately
for each of the six rating categories.

In developing a score it is important to consider the
amount of improvement a project might be expected to achieve. This kind of
project impact has been represented in this analysis by characterizing candidate
projects by a very general “project concept.” The six project concepts used here
are:

Adding new grade separation

Reconstructing of a major interchange

Reconstructing of a minor interchange

Significant widening of a
road

Minor widening of a road

Reducing roadway capacity

The amount of improvement to safety and capacity in and
near the project area will to some degree depend on the project concept.

The balance of this memo considers the rating categories
individually. The indices, factors, and judgments that could result in a high,
medium, or low score being assigned to a particular project are described and
discussed for each of the six rating categories.

2.1 Safety

MPO staff maintains extensive databases of regional crash
history, and these were used to assess the safety improvement needs for
interchanges, express highways, and regional arterials. Crash history is
measured using the “equivalent property damage only” index, abbreviated as EPDO.
Crashes resulting in a fatality are given ten points, crashes resulting in
injury five points, and property-damage-only crashes are given only one point.
Given the relative infrequency of accidents, using the most recent three years
of EPDO data in the candidate project areas gives a reasonable idea of the
safety needs at that location.

Using the project-area EPDO values, staff developed indices
that relate the crash history to project costs and projected users. Regional
safety “hot spots” are identified by EPDO and may be addressed by candidate
projects. EPDO related to specific modes and vehicle classes are also calculated
and reviewed. These EPDO-based metrics include:

Choosing a score in the safety category requires comparing
the severity of the safety problem with the improvement impact of the candidate
project. As a general rule, the lower score of the two factors was the final
score:

Low:
Either the need or the project
benefit is low. Other factor may be higher

Medium:
Either the need or the project benefit is medium. Other factor may be higher

High:
Both the safety need and project benefit is high

In assessing the project impact the project concept offers
some general guidance:

Adding new grade
separation
Low to medium

Reconstructing of a major
interchange
Medium to high

Reconstructing of a minor
interchange
Low to high

Significant widening of a
road
Low to high

Minor widening of a
road
Low to high

Reducing roadway
capacity
Medium

An example of an improvement with a high safety benefit
would be one that eliminates peak-period use of breakdown lanes on express
highways or eliminates dangerous weaving movements at major interchanges.

2.2 System Preservation

MPO staff was able to use the state Road Inventory File and
other sources to develop quantitative data for most candidate projects. The
measured criteria include:

Improves emergency response or ability to
respond to extreme conditions

Improves access to an emergency support
location

Implements climate change adaptation
strategies

The system preservation score was a judgment based on
reviewing all the measured factors. An index that collapsed all the above
factors into a single number was not used.

2.3 Capacity Management/Mobility: Autos

As part of the LRTP Needs Assessment, MPO staff analyzed
several congestion measurements for both current and future conditions based on
travel time, travel speed, and volume/capacity ratios to identify the worst
bottleneck locations in the region. These MPO-identified bottleneck locations
from the Needs Assessment were used to assess mobility-related needs of both
express highways and regional arterials. Staff then assessed the impact of the
project on managing capacity and improving mobility. The category scoring
generally followed this pattern:

Low:
Project is not at an MPO-identified bottleneck location

MPO-identified bottleneck would receive limited or no benefit

Medium:
MPO-identified bottleneck will be addressed to a medium degree

Non-bottleneck location is substantially improved

High:
MPO-identified bottleneck location is
substantially improved

New connection will improve mobility to a high degree

As in the safety category, levels of need and project
benefit will vary across candidate projects, and judgment must be used to arrive
at a score. A few examples can help illustrate this process.

Three projects that rated low, the I-290/I-495 interchange
in Hudson, the Routes 126/135 junction in Framingham, and Middlesex Turnpike in
Bedford were not MPO-identified bottleneck locations simply because other
locations were significantly worse. Highland Avenue in Newton and Montvale
Avenue in Woburn were also not MPO-designated bottlenecks. However, in these
instances the improvements were considered great enough that the projects were
given the score of “medium.” Complete reconstructions of old interchanges can
also earn the medium ranking in the same way.

The heavily used I-93/I-95 interchange in Woburn is near
the top of the list of regional bottlenecks. The improvements to the interchange
and nearby roadways proposed as part of project reconstruction will result in a
major improvement to regional traffic flow. At the other extreme is rebuilding
the Boston Street overpass over the Lowell commuter rail line near the
Wilmington-Woburn city line creates a completely new access corridor to an
industrial area thereby earning a “high” rating.

2.4 Capacity Management/Mobility: Buses

To determine the bus mobility rating for congestion
management, MPO staff considered the level of bus service (MBTA and
other local bus services) within the project area based on the number of routes
and number of scheduled weekday bus trips. Then, using the auto mobility rating
as the baseline, MPO staff assessed whether the bus service within area derived
the same level of improvement as automobiles. The general scoring pattern for
this category was:

Low:
No bus service within the project
area or bus service will not be improved

Limited bus service and small to medium improvement for bus service

Some bus service within the
project area but little bus service improvement

Medium: Some bus service
within the project area; and moderate service improvement

Significant bus service within
the project area and smaller service improvement

High:
Significant project area bus service and significant service improvement

Judgment was required where projects seemed to fall between
scoring levels. An example is the proposed Boardman Street grade separation.
This is a severe arterial bottleneck causing delay to a large number of buses on
some of the MBTA’s longest bus routes. However, because speeding traffic on this
part of Route 1A would only shorten the bus travel times by a small percentage,
a “medium” score for bus mobility has been assigned to the project.

The Route 3 widening would be a major improvement in a
corridor that is considered to only have moderate congestion, as compared with
its connecting highway, the Southeast Expressway. Few MBTA buses would benefit
from the Route 3 widening, so the bus mobility score is “low.” Closer to
downtown Boston, the Southampton Street interchange improvements would make a
moderate impact at a location with severe congestion. Because more bus services
would benefit, both auto and bus mobility improvements are rated “medium.”

2.5 Capacity Management/Mobility: Pedestrians
and Bicycles

For the two non-motorized modes, the mobility issues relate
primarily to the completeness and ease-of-use of the system of paths, sidewalks,
and roads available for non-motorized travel. In evaluating candidate projects,
MPO staff evaluates to what degree, if any, a project:

Expands bicycle network, especially closing
gaps in the system:

Number of bicycle lane-miles added to the
network

Bay State Greenway Priority 100 project
element

High Priority Gap (flagged in the MPO’s Network
Evaluation Study)

Expands sidewalk network

Number of sidewalks miles added to the network

Improves transit access and intermodal
connections

Access to transit stations are improved for
bicyclists and/or pedestrians

The project scores for this category reflect these benefit
judgments:

Low:
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are
not applicable to the project

Bike/pedestrian facilities will be expanded to a low degree

Medium: Bike/pedestrian
facilities will be expanded to a moderate degree

Project meets
healthy transportation policy directive standards

High:
Bike/pedestrian facilities will be expanded to a high degree

Project
exceeds healthy transportation policy directive standards

2.6 Economic Vitality

While any major transportation improvement can be expected
to contribute to economic vitality, the ratings in this category reflect to what
degree the improvements support the land use objectives embraced by the MPO. A
candidate project can support these objectives if it:

Provides access to target development
area

Vehicle, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian access
improvements

Serves existing area of concentrated development

High population and employment density for type
of community

Facilitates new development

Transportation project is tied to new
development proposals

The project scores for this category reflect these benefit
judgments:

Low:
Project does not provide access to a
targeted development area or area of concentrated development.

Medium: Project provides
access to a targeted development area or area of concentrated development to a
moderate degree or facilitates economic development

High:
Project provides access to a targeted development area or area of concentrated
development to at least a moderate degree, and it facilitates new
development.